Skip to main content
10:00 pm
to the planning code to establish the difficult viz dare owe neighborhood commercial district. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, department staff. the item before you is an ordinance proposed by supervisor olague to create a neighborhood commercial district along divisadero street from haight to o'farrell. stephanie tucker from supervisor olague's office is here to speak about the proposed ordinance. then after she speaks i'll continue with my presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephanie tucker, legislative aide to supervisor christina olague. we're here today to ask for your approval for amendments to divisadero street. this conversation at the beginning of last year. we had several concerns from the community about small businesses and growth as well as concerns around -- from the surrounding community.
10:01 pm
but essentially, the divisadero street is becoming a very popular commercial district, very similar to a lot of other commercial districts like the upper haight and upper fillmore. so, it made sense that now we would create a new commercial district that would help guide the growth and make sure that we get small businesses that are serving communities in that area and controls that the community would like to see to make sure that that -- it grows in the way the community [speaker not understood]. so, today we are asking for your approval. if you have any questions, i'm here to answer them. thank you. >> so, the zoning code has two different commercial districts. nc1, n c-2, nc3.
10:02 pm
there is also named neighborhood commercial districts such as the castro and ncd, upper fillmore ncd and the polk street. rezoning properties along divisadero street from n c-2 to a newly created named commercial district called the divisadero street ncd. for the most part, the new divisadero street ncd maintains the n c-2 zoning controls, however, there are some notable changes. the ordinance removes the minimum parking controls and replaces them with maximum parking controls. it allows the 5 foot height bonus for active ground floor uses and 40 x zoning or height districts. it allows bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, other entertainment, philanthropyic administrative services and trade shops on the second floor of buildings with no prior residential use. the ordinance also removes the divisadero street alcohol restricted use district, but maintains the prohibition on liquor stores in the new ncd, the street would have a named
10:03 pm
ncd. this restricted use district is no longer necessary because you can just outright prohibit liquor stores. staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following modifications. one would be to include all n c-2 zoneded parcels located on blocks that front on divisadero street, not just lots that front on divisadero street. this would ensure that all neighborhood commercial zoned properties along divisadero are in the immediate vicinity would be included in the new zoning district. to reinstate the good neighbor policies for general and specialty grocery stores which was inadvertently removed when the ordinance was drafted and modify the ordinance so that bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, philanthropic and trade shops are permitted on the second floor so long as they are not displacing an existing residential unit. instead allowing them only in spaces where there was no prior
10:04 pm
residential unit. staff is also recommending that the definition for philanthropic administrative services be amended to remove conflicting and unnecessary provisions in the language and several other clerical changes that only are in here because they are -- the ordinance is changing that section of the code. that concludes my presentation and i'm also happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any board committee on this item? -- is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> i support the presentation. i think we ought to name more of our commercial corridor districts and really reign in the controls in a way that's -- that makes sense for that corridor and allow those corridorses to set the rules they like. that is one of the challenges with the nc1, 2 and 3 classifications. so, with that i move to approve with the modifications.
10:05 pm
>> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe it changes the -- all to maximum parking rather than minimum parking in the new ncd. >> yeah, but it depends which it is and what the maximums are. >> they're the standard found in section 151. so, all the other districts that have had this done to them have maximum parking controls. i'm sorry, i don't have that section of the code in front of me for the parking, though. >> seems to me it would be related more to the commercial
10:06 pm
establishments that front divisadero street as opposed to somebody's residential building that might be built new. but that's important to know. well, while you're looking at that, i'll raise my other question. in terms of second and third floor use, it specified philanthropic and administrative, but it didn't mention just general office. why wouldn't you be able to just have, you know, an insurance agency upstairs or something like that? i don't understand why we're being so specific about what could be on the second floor. >> great question. the reason that there is no definition for just general office, and that is something that the department is looking into creating and hopefully bringing forward to the commission soon. the idea was that when neighborhood commercial districts were created in the '80s, they didn't want offices in neighborhood commercial districts because they weren't retail.
10:07 pm
so, an actual definition wasn't created. >> i think that's really important because we found second floor retail is often not very effective, sometimes even ground floor has problems. but, you know, second floor uses for office and other type uses, not at the expense of housing, is often a very appropriate use. and when it's quite successful. i would hope if we did pass this , these earmarked uses, it could be modified at such time as the city might allow for more general uses in all of these named ncd districts. is that what you're telling me? >> yeah, i think the intention is to allow offices on the second floor. it just is a matter of getting that legislation, drafting it, introducing it and bringing it forward. >> what i'm hearing is if we were to pass this today and then this would be done in more
10:08 pm
of a blanket way, then it would apply to any of the named ncds if this legislation was passed through. we wouldn't have to revisit each one of them and pass, and see if they would be willing to accept that? >> commissioners, if i could, emory rodgers, planning department staff. the director asked us to look into the issue of office and neighborhood commercial districts. it could be a little bit controversial because it was originally purposely excluded from neighborhood commercial districts, but we feel that the office district has been pretty constrained downtown and south of market. and we're not talking about large office uses. we'd be looking at smaller, more neighborhood appropriate office uses. but that work is just begun so we don't know enough about that proposal to say what it would ultimately do. so, the only thing before you is allowing it in this limited way in the divisadero entity. >> yeah, okay. i understand that. but i think this is an
10:09 pm
important question for the future because what we may hear later today on our calendar about a potential use on a ground floor of a neighborhood commercial district. we want active uses that are day and night and all these arguments that come up. but if you don't allow them on the second floor, where are they going to be? because they can't be on the ground floor, they can't be on the second floor. you want people to frequent neighborhoods and take care of their business. if they have to go somewhere else, get in their car to take care of some of their business that involves a professional of some kind, you know, it's very restrictive. but that's not what's before us. we only have the ability to pass what this is right now. did you find out about the parking? >> off-street parking for residential, none is required. and it's permitted for .5 cars per unit and conditional use for .75 cars per unit. not permitted above that.
10:10 pm
>> i think that's pretty restrictive. if somebody wants to build infill parking somewhere in this area and -- our housing would be principally permitted, i would think, along this corridor? >> yes. >> so it could be that there's one. to make it reasonable, they're going to want a parking place for each of their potential units, i would think. and, you know, they would not be allowed to under this legislation. so, again, it goes much to extreme. getting rid of the minimums that require one car per each unit, i would expect. >> actually, it does require one car per each unit but they can get a waiver from the zoning administrator under section 01 61. >> so, is it possible -- well, i don't know if i could do that anyway, but is it possible to modify the approval and strike that section out of there? >> the commission can make any recommendation they see fit. >> that would be my feeling, is
10:11 pm
i would move to approve this. but but eliminate the legislation that speaks -- we could eliminate the maximum, you know, but -- eliminate the minimum, but not put a maximum on it. * is that all right to do as a motion? >> we have a motion -- >> we have a motion, yeah. all right. how about an amendment? i would move to amend that -- this motion to, you know, eliminate the, you know, we can go ahead and eliminate the minimum and, you know, my amendment -- >> i don't support the amendment to my motion. if you want to make a substitute motion, you can. i don't support the amendment. >> yeah, i can make a substitute motion. it would be to allow, you know, parking as a right up to 1 to 1. put that out there for what it's worth.
10:12 pm
>> commissioners, we have a motion with a second. without the maker of the motion, second the amendment, we should take the matter of the first motion. and if that fails, we can proceed with a substitute motion. >> commissioner moore? >> i am very glad to see this legislation. i think the transformative qualities of streetscape improvements have really completely transformed the district. the second tier buildings behind it, new housing, the improvement of the dmv parking area with new landscaping, all the thing to be improved are kind of gelling to make this street a concentrated new main street, kind of neighborhood main street. and i'm delighted that the legislation is sensitive to the small scale buildings, to the age of the buildings, to the type of mixed uses and to the kind of specific signature of neighborhood commercial district which is very different from any of the others. and as i think the beauty of
10:13 pm
san francisco here, i'm very pleased to see the small business commission actually rising to the board of supervisors and copying us to their very unanimous support of what's in front of us. so, i am delighted to just support it as it stands. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm also supportive of the legislation. but you have a question on the third recommendation, which is -- has to do with displacing existing residents. the way it was before was that there could never have been a residential unit there, but in the new code it will be no existing residential unit. so, at the time. is that consistent with the way the code treats that provision in other ncds, this notion of unit at the time versus the past? >> i think this is an unusual provision. i'm not sure that it's been
10:14 pm
adopted in other ncds. this is particularly crafted for this. it came about because of a brewery that wanted to establish in a garage on divisadero street and they couldn't operate on the second floor. so, they wanted to be able to allow them to expand to the second floor. there is also a concern that they don't want to encourage commercial uses on the second floor and displace residential units. so, that's why they put that in there as a caveat. >> that's my concern also. i'm okay with the way i think that the planning department has recommended to modify t but i just want to make sure we're not creating some sort of incentive where you would keep the residential unit vacant somehow convert it and then rent it out. >> there is a very robust process to get rid of a residential unit in our planning code. so, staff feels very comfortable that something like that wouldn't happen just because they don't rent it out doesn't mean the use goes away.
10:15 pm
it still remains a residential unit. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i very much appreciate commissioner wu's comment because that was one of the reasons why i strongly supported the extension or continuance of the fillmore district where we have a lot of residential very critical nature, and i think that needs to be addressed more clearly. and i'm glad that we are recognizing it in the way that you did. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think aside from the parking which i spoke to, the rest of the legislation is well written and it's well done. but i won't be able to support it based upon that part of it. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a resolution recommending with modifications as proposed by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye.
10:16 pm
>> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (daggett park) in-kind agreement. >> good afternoon, commissioners, steve [speaker not understood], department staff. i'm please today present to you an in-kind agreement for 16th street daggett park. it is the mile steyn towards a new park in ship place square [speaker not understood]. this agreement reflects over a
10:17 pm
year in coordination and collaboration between the city, the developer and the community including the planning department's plan implementation team, office of economic and work force development, the port, department of public works, department of real estate, recreation and park department, the arts commission, and mta. if i can get the overhead, please, i'd like to first orient everyone as to the site. so, this patch of land you may be familiar with the intersection of 16th and seventh is the area of the future daggett park and its affiliated development. the new park will be located along the daggett street right-of-way which is currently an unimproved patch of land at the intersection of 16th and seventh as i said. this area here. through the in-kind agreement the new park will be built by archstone [speaker not understood]. the project includes approximately 470 units of rental housing accompanying floor retail and [speaker not understood] by the planning commission in july of 2011.
10:18 pm
so, the next overhead show is the project orientation. see the park in the middle along the public right-of-way and the development along the private parcels. the project is projected to owe the city $4.2 million in eastern neighborhoods infrastructure impact fees. archstone is seeking a waiver today of 1.88 million of those fees in return for constructing this park. the construction of the park would fulfill the vision of the showplace square at potrero plan policy 5.1.1 calls for the city to identify opportunities to create new public parks and open spaces and provide at least one new public park or open space serving ship place and potrero. the eastern neighborhoods process identified the creation of a new park in the showplace square as an eastern neighborhoods priority project. the parka long daggett street right-of-way was identified in 2009. ship showplace square plan. the advise have i committee identified the daggett park site as a top priest for new
10:19 pm
open space in the show place area, voted unanimously in july of 2011 to support the creation of a new park at this location. the proposed park would be .88 acres in size, about half the size of southpark and substantially larger than patricia's green in hayes valley. include large air lawn areas for recreation and gathering, ample seating opportunities dispersed throughout the park, architectural features that double as play area, [speaker not understood] american with disability act and mayor's office of disability. fenced off dog run, public art piece selected through a process facilitated by the arts commission, easing welcoming access [speaker not understood] so the clearly reads a a public park. [speaker not understood] stormwater garden and drought resistant trees and landscaping. now i'll show you a couple more images of the park.
10:20 pm
this is kind of an area perspective maybe here are seagulls looking down the park towards the freeway. here's one more image you would see from 16th street, housing to the right, to the left, and the freeway behind it. so, to talk about the value of this in-kind agreement. improvements are cal claythved at over $3.72 million, well over the 1.88 million waiver asked for in the in kind agreement. the city is so enthusectiontion enthusiastic is we can leverage the money archstone would otherwise have to spend improving the right-of-way. [speaker not understood]. they are proposing to gift over a million dollars of improvements to the city. this gift would occur as a separate agreement through the board of supervisors. as part of this in kind agreement archstone is also proposing to maintain the park
10:21 pm
in perpetuity. therefore there will be no subsequent costs to the city for this park. the recent developer is willing to convey so much value to the city they see their ability to rent the adjacent development. this isn't meant to be a private park. we work closely with the design team, park team, to make sure it looks and feels public based on signage, visibility and design. is [speaker not understood] already embedded in our community. let's talk about the process. the approval of this in kind agreement is only one aspect of completing the proposed park. other elements acquiring the land from the port of san francisco, entering into a legal agreement to receive the gift of the park improvements from the project sponsor, phase iii of the civic design review process, the completion of an operations and maintenance plan with the project sponsor. completing this in kind agreement will enable us to finalize those within the next couple of months. in time to meet the construction schedule. based on their schedule both
10:22 pm
the park and surrounding development would be completed in mid 2014. at that time the park built with further requirements of the legal agreements made between the city and the project sponsor. now talk about the required commission action. to complete this in kind agreement requires the planning commission to approve an impact fee waiver of 1.88 million dollars for the in kind improvements. there are certain thresholds daggett park must meet to approve the inkind agreement. i'll walk through the thresholds and how we believe the park meets the threshold. it must be eligible for an in kind agreement. to be eligible for an in kind agreement the proposed project must meet the following three requirements. first fulfill community improvements. second, infrastructure type is identified in the fee ordinance and third, the expenditure category for the infrastructure type has not been exhausted. so, the proposed daggett park meets all three requirements as follows. as mentioned before, the
10:23 pm
showplace square open space plan -- excuse me, area plan calls for the city to identify opportunities to create new parks in this area. the creation of daggett park would fulfill that goal. for the eastern neighborhoods plan, parks are a type of infrastructure for which impact fees can be spent. timely, the park's expenditure category has over $1.88 million in it. next proposed improvements must be a priority. as discussed before the creation of park in showplace square area is to showcase the area plan. also building a new park in showplace square is also a priority project per the eastern neighborhoods infrastructure prioritization memorandum of understanding completed in january of 2009. in the eastern neighborhoods we are required by law to spend 80% of our impact fees on these priority projects so this project helps us fulfill that legal obligation. finally the project must be recommended as discussed before, the proposed project was supported by 2009 showplace square open space plan. it was supported by a community meeting held in early 2011.
10:24 pm
it was unanimously supported by the eastern neighborhoods citizens have iery committee in july 2011. the proposed project has been reviewed and supported by member city agencies including department of public works, the port, park and recreation, arts commission, park and mission civic design review and office of economic work force and development. based on the community support, supported by other agencies and excellent return on value to the city and public the planning department recommends approval of this in kind agreement. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, isabelle wade. i wanted to speak in favor of this project. i'm actually really excited to hear about it. i'm here for another reason today. but i was part of the eastern neighborhoods planning process in my capacity as executive director of neighborhood [speaker not understood] council and also being being in
10:25 pm
the subsequent open space work group that steve put together because those of us in the eastern neighborhoods planning process felt there wasn't enough emphasis about open space in the plans. and even in the work group we struggled so hard to find places to make parks or open space. i think this kind of a project is increasingly going to be the way the city gets open space and parks in our new neighborhoods. and i think this looks like an excellent design that is open to the public and conveys that it's a public park. and i just want to encourage you to look at other projects in the future for this very reason to see if there's ways we can squeeze in more parks and open space. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden. >> hi. i think this is a great project. i just wanted staff to go over
10:26 pm
this. it was a little confusing. i know there are overall -- they're on the hook for fees for 4.2 million. then there is the 1.88 million that we're approving and then i guess there is another gift. is that part of the -- >> they write a check for the difference of the 4.2 million and 1.88 million. >> what is the gift, is that something different? >> the gift is -- what they're proposing to build is worth $3.7 million, right. we're only giving the waiver for 1.88. so, the city by law to receive that kind of value -- they need to legally take it as a gift. that is a good way to legally structure so everyone is kind of legally obligate today provide what they have promised as well. >> but then there is another layer. it sounds like we also need to buy this land from ourselves. * obligated to so, thatses what another thing confusing to me. we have to find additional money to actually buy this land
10:27 pm
from ourselves? >> um-hm. we've been working internally, not necessarily in kind agreement, but a separate process going on between representatives from the mayor's office who are here today if you want to speak about this as well as the port. and try and negotiate what is the value of this land. it's been a tricky proposition because it's public right-of-way. interesting the port owns this land but this is the vestiges of mission bay. so, within the port trust. so, for them to -- we can theoretically build the park on t but it's just cleaner to not have the port own the land any more. the city ons the right-of-way. dpw gets to own the street right-of-way, but the port owns underneath. we're in the process of appraising the value of the land as open space whereas publicly owned land with the open space designation which basically means you can't build on it, a building, and getting the [speaker not understood]. and then we have a different strategies we're trying to figure out how to negotiate with the port about how to convey that money to them. but they've already shown their
10:28 pm
willingness to go through the process, do the appraisal, to take the money over time to talk about different means to receive the money. that is a separate conversation. >> there is no availability -- i know we just passed the park bond or park recreation bond. i don't know if any of the funds there were not earmarked in a way they could be used for this project. do we know? >> i'm not sure actually. i feel like we're turning over many different financing stones and even laying the [speaker not understood] to take the lead on that. and everyone kind of feels confident with this we'll get done. it just hasn't been done before this in kind agreement was done because we want the timing of this presentation, we want to get that done first. the timing of this presentation was moved up because archstone is now ready to build and they need to go out and get the financing for this project. and we wanted to show the commitment of the city, hey, we want this park. it's a a great value for us. then they can get their funders to support it as well. that is why we timed it as such. >> it is good for us all to know. because we haven't seen it.
10:29 pm
perfect. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> i had a few questions. i think this is really a good project in its concept, a wonderful one. i'm very ken urged to hear project sponsor will be doing the maintenance also in the future. so, one would assume they will keep it well maintained because they have an interest in making it attractive for theirors. -- rentors. or will they have security or will it be up to sfpd? >> we have to develop an operations and maintenance plan for this. i'm sure it will be part of the consideration. i know there will be security. we haven't determined what that process will be yet. >> that can be worked out. the other thing is you spoke a little bit about the landscaping and you mentioned there will be these lawns which one would assume they will have the flexibility to put in what they want to do and it would be the kind of grass you can actually sit on because the city has been putting a lot of this bent grass

November 30, 2012 10:00pm-10:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Daggett 6, Ncd 5, Antonini 4, San Francisco 3, Wu 3, Moore 3, Stephanie Tucker 2, Haight 1, The Port 1, Unit 1, Dpw 1, Priority 1, New Landscaping 1, Emory Rodgers 1, Potrero 1, Archstone 1, Mta 1, Sugaya 1, Rentors 1, Isabelle Wade 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color